Author Topic: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread  (Read 791350 times)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: 10/29/2009 03:42 AM »

Hmmm, could the military be backing Blue Origin as a black ops squad delivery vehicle, to overfly a country suborbitally, dropping the squad with retro rockets and parachutes? Perhaps this explains all the secrecy around Blue Origin. Even the company name sounds like some Area 51 black project.

that concept has been debunked many times.  It is not militarily feasible.  Again, you are seeing things that don't exist.

If it's not militarily feasible, why do DARPA and the services regularly spend so much money on the concept?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/02/can-falcon-9-deliver-us-marine.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner~y2008m10d19-Star-Wars-reality-Hot-Eagle-spaceplane-and-space-troopers-concept-in-work
"The marines first called for a spaceplane in 2002 after the US military failed to capture Osama Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan. The project was known as the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion programme (Sustain). Its advocates said it took too long on foot to reach the caves where Bin Laden was said to be hiding and helicopters were too visible.

General James Mattis, leading the marines’ Central Command at the time, said he wanted the  spaceplane in the air by 2019. He was recently promoted to be one of the most senior officers in the US military establishment and Sustain has since become a priority.

Last week Lieutenant Colonel Mark Brown, a US air force spokesman, confirmed that Nasa and Pentagon officers had met for two days of talks to draw up plans for Hot Eagle."

Yeah sure, Jim, its all figments....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSTAIN_%28military%29
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: 10/29/2009 05:46 AM »
Even stupid ideas get airtime sometimes.

Can you imagine a less stealthy way of deploying troops than suborbital ballistic delivery? If your intended target is:
A) a powerful nation - they would detect the unscheduled launch and interpret it as an incoming ICBM
or B) some random warlord - then the concept is complete overkill, just do a high altitude paratrooper insertion instead
« Last Edit: 10/29/2009 05:48 AM by Lars_J »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: 10/29/2009 07:49 AM »
Even stupid ideas get airtime sometimes.

Can you imagine a less stealthy way of deploying troops than suborbital ballistic delivery? If your intended target is:
A) a powerful nation - they would detect the unscheduled launch and interpret it as an incoming ICBM
or B) some random warlord - then the concept is complete overkill, just do a high altitude paratrooper insertion instead

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts), which makes them fall outside the detection algorithms of satellite detections, and also only the US and Russia have said ballistic launch detection capability in space.
b) Try reading the the previous post again, it takes too long to do a regular airborne insertion.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2009 07:49 AM by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31161
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9398
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: 10/29/2009 12:16 PM »

Yeah sure, Jim, its all figments....


It is.    Just like Dynasoar as a bomber. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31161
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9398
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: 10/29/2009 12:19 PM »

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),

What says they are airlaunched?   SS1 is not an example.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: 10/29/2009 11:26 PM »

a) air launched manned suborbitals have distinctly different trajectories (and much cooler exhausts),

What says they are airlaunched?   SS1 is not an example.

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Zond

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: 11/09/2009 09:54 PM »
http://twitter.com/blue_origin
Quote
so it appears that i am in charge of blue origin's official twitter account. uhh... what is one to post if all our work is secret?
http://twitter.com/Graham_Orr
 :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31161
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9398
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: 11/09/2009 10:06 PM »

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.

Show me where SUSTAIN is taken seriously by anybody other than the Marines.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: 11/09/2009 11:00 PM »
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4214
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1389
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: 11/11/2009 02:52 PM »
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

No different than infiltration units flying gliders into France just before Operation Overlord, their "recovery" being done by advancing front line forces.  Then again, at times, there actually are one-way missions.  My uncle *somehow* survived 2 of these during WW-II.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2009 03:00 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: 11/11/2009 05:41 PM »

Thats funny Jim, tell us another one. Why is it then that the SUSTAIN page specifically shows an air launched suborbital, includes SS1 as an example of the type of vehicle.

Show me where SUSTAIN is taken seriously by anybody other than the Marines.

http://warisboring.com/?p=2675
NSSO seems to be taking it seriously.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1642
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: 11/12/2009 05:06 AM »
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

The aim now is to insert robotic troops instead. The insertion vehicle needn't land in enemy territory, it could probably insert troops and fly away at high altitude. As for the enemy shooting it down, when was the last time someone like the Taliban succesfully downed something like a U-2?

Legally, this capability is actually very very important for the United States. You don't have to phone the prime minister of country Y at 3am in the morning and ask him/her to authorise passage through his/her country's airspace so you can go and pound somebody in country X. Right now, there are serious legal issues about using drones to kill people, which is technically assassination. 13 Marines wouldn't wipe out a wedding party but a Hellfire missile sure would.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9562
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 450
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: 11/12/2009 01:53 PM »
Since we don't know if Blue Origin intends to fly troops anywhere, could we save the theoretical discussion for another thread?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: 11/12/2009 02:07 PM »
Why go through such an elaborate way to get them in there and then no real way to extract the team?

The aim now is to insert robotic troops instead. The insertion vehicle needn't land in enemy territory, it could probably insert troops and fly away at high altitude. As for the enemy shooting it down, when was the last time someone like the Taliban succesfully downed something like a U-2?

Legally, this capability is actually very very important for the United States. You don't have to phone the prime minister of country Y at 3am in the morning and ask him/her to authorise passage through his/her country's airspace so you can go and pound somebody in country X. Right now, there are serious legal issues about using drones to kill people, which is technically assassination. 13 Marines wouldn't wipe out a wedding party but a Hellfire missile sure would.

What????

Spaceplanes to Afghanistan.  Robotic soldiers.....

Why don't we just beam them in then?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1642
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: 11/13/2009 02:18 AM »
"Because the dilithium deposits in the Afghan caves are preventing us from gettin' a transporter lock, cap'n! I canna break the laws o' physics you know!"

The point is, I think it is at least possible that somebody in the US military is looking at some sort of suborbital weapons delivery where the weapons have to come down in one piece. As for the "robotic soldier" I'm taking a quote from a website but it would basically be a MAWP with a gun and lots of ammo, controlled by satellite. Great for interrupting a terrorist tea party.

To be honest, though, I do not think Blue Origin has anything to do with the military right now. And the idea I mentioned is still just a blue sky idea, with no funding yet. Maybe in 2030 we'll see something like that, but not earlier.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2009 02:20 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Hootz

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17771
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 3231
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: 11/24/2009 01:04 AM »
Looking at their website, I didn't realize they had so many job openings. Heads-up for any out there looking for something different.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Zond

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: 12/17/2009 05:04 PM »
Blue Origin has build their planned landing pad (in addition to their launch/testing pad) some time in 2008: see this link for a satellite photo: http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=522734&cy=3479319&proj=32613&mpp=5&pic=img&prov=gx19&stac=1056&ovrl=-1&drwl=-1.

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: 12/22/2009 12:00 AM »
Zond, thanks a lot. I adjusted my Google map a bit, using the picture at Terraserver that you linked. Google lags by years in that location. Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

Also, I renamed pads according to the scheme used in the Space.com map, e.g. the northmost pad is "Landing" pad, and the main pad where bleachers point is now "Launch" pad. The aero pictures do not identify any structures where the "explosive storage" area should be, so I didn't mark it.

-- Pete

Edit 2010/5/22: Google now shows the VAB and facilities as they were in 2008. No auxiliary pad on those, although landing pad is present.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2010 03:37 AM by zaitcev »

Offline Zond

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin Update and Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: 12/22/2009 10:01 PM »
Zond, thanks a lot. I adjusted my Google map a bit, using the picture at Terraserver that you linked. Google lags by years in that location. Interestingly, the auxiliary pad (west-south-west of the technical facilities) that I thought was older does not even exist at Terraserver photo, so it is in fact very new.

Also, I renamed pads according to the scheme used in the Space.com map, e.g. the northmost pad is "Landing" pad, and the main pad where bleachers point is now "Launch" pad. The aero pictures do not identify any structures where the "explosive storage" area should be, so I didn't mark it.

-- Pete

I'm not sure if the structure you describe as the "auxilary pad" is even a launch pad at all: there's no mention of a launch pad in that area in the Environmental Assesment of the launch site and it's a lot closer to the other buildings and the launch site perimeter than the launch and landing pad.

Tags: